Judge Jackson Should Not be Confirmed to the Supreme Court

Loading

By E.W. JACKSON

As an American of African descent and a great grandson of slaves, I am certainly not opposed to the appointment of a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. I am also a Christian and American patriot who cares deeply about the integrity of our legal system and the future of our country. Therefore I am categorically against confirming Ketanji Brown Jackson to the highest court. One day a woman of her background will assume that post, but Jackson should not be the person to break that glass ceiling. Here is why.
 
She is an adherent of the far left. Some Republican Senators are willing to overlook this. They are treating her confirmation as a fait accompli. They would rather not go on record against the “first black woman” nominated to the Court. This is the kind of political expediency which has brought our country to the precipice.
 

Great Potential Damage to America’s Future

 
Supreme Court decisions not only change the legal landscape. They can alter the culture in destructive ways. Roe v. Wade was a cultural earthquake which led to the elimination of over 60 million nascent human beings. Almost fifty years later a majority of Americans believe it was not only bad law, but evil. The opposition has been so fierce that it has led to bombings of abortion clinics, assassinations of abortion doctors and mass arrests at pro-life demonstrations. To be clear, the murders and bombings were as morally wrong as the activity they were directed against. I am opposed to violence as a response to bad public policy. This is simply to point out that social upheaval ensues when Supreme Court Justices think they have the authority to make sweeping cultural changes by diktat.
 
Jackson as a devotee and admirer of Derrick Bell undoubtedly sees herself as a social reformer. Bell is The “Godfather” of Critical Race Theory. CRT says the law is based upon white supremacy. The society is unjust and racist at its core, so goes the theory, and therefore the law is as well. It is not deserving of respect and deference, but ultimately must be overthrown. Putting someone of this perspective on the court is injecting poison into the heart of the American legal system. She could be on the Supreme Court for thirty years, doing immense damage to our country.
 

Judicial Sympathy for Child Pornography Users

 
There is also the issue raised by Senator Josh Hawley. He has found in her record a bizarre judicial sympathy for the users of child pornography, reducing their sentences below the recommended guidelines. In one transcript shared by Senator Hawley, Jackson opines:

I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a, that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level.

She also says she “mistakenly assumed that child pornography offenders are pedophiles.”
 
Yet according to Distinguished Professor Matt Delisi, in a University of Iowa study in 2020:

So many times, a child porn possession case will have no official criminal history. … What we find, though, is that the majority of them have prior contact victims. [N]ot only do they have actual prior crimes, but they have actual prior contact sexual offenses.

So much for Jackson‘s “less serious child pornography offender.” None other than renowned former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has come to Jackson‘s defense in an article in National Review. He argues that Judge Jackson is simply doing what many judges do — distinguishing between the evil producer and often naive end-user. I find this argument unpersuasive and disturbing.
 
[the_ad id=”157875″]
 
McCarthy writes, “‘sex offenders’ include people who have never put a hand on a child for sexual purposes but are consumers of pornographic images, which they possess, transmit, or trade — sometimes for money but often not.”
 
That sounds alarmingly similar to articles I have read in Salon and other leftist publications which suggest we should destigmatize “non-contact” pedophiles as just another sexual orientation. After all, they argue, there is nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to children if you don’t act on it. Most of us would beg to differ.
 

Quality of Character Over Racial Tribalism

 
Finally, there is this. Judge Jackson refuses to offer an opinion on packing the court or to even define what a woman is, claiming, “I am not a biologist.” Failing to answer these questions proves that she bows to her far left Arabella funders and Democrat masters, and therefore lacks the essential quality of judicial independence.

Read more
 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

comment image
JUST IN: McConnell Says He Will Vote Against Confirming Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court (VIDEO)
that clears the way for moderate dems to say no. It is a signal to the dems to have her withdrawn

At this point the bet is she will not be a SC justice.

She evaded the simple and straightforward question “what is a woman?” because for the constituency she would be serving as a Supreme Court Justice (she would not be serving all Americans), there is no correct answer. It’s far too complicated to answer without offending SOMEONE on the left and leftists always worry about offending (and, thus, losing the support of) those who are impossible NOT to offend. Of course, she could have simply said, “Me. I’M a woman.” But she was sure that would offend someone.

She is infected with America-hate and will apply that hatred to her decisions. She let’s pedophiles with light sentences because their crimes are not their fault; it is the fault of the racist establishment that vilifies things like sexually exploiting and abusing children.

Cory Booker did a pretty good job of completely explaining and clarifying why she was nominated and why she is unqualified. He spent his entire allocated time gushing over how, because they happen to share the same race, he was overwhelmed by emotion and awe. Just as idiot Biden has intended, nothing mattered but her race and what a momentous, monumental and historic having her sit before the Committee was. And that was it. Not a word about her qualifications, her judicial predilections or history, her influences, her judgement, her background, her abilities… just, as far as Spartacus was concerned, she was the right race for the job.

You can pretty much assume anyone idiot Joe (or his puppet masters) chooses is unqualified to serve the American people. That is a prejudice, but his actual nominees for just about everything bears out the validity of that presumption. Jackson follows that trend.